According to Discovery: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.* Intelligent design challenges evolution theory which is based on mindless naturalism. Therefore it is under attack from the powerful world of mainstream science.

John Heskett describes design as the human nature to shape and make our environment in ways without precedent in nature, to serve our needs and give meaning to our lives. Everything that doesn't exist in nature naturally was designed by human beings. Everyday observation understates the fact that design doesn't come falling from thin air. Human beings are intelligent agents with the ability to design specified complexity. Every such creation starts with an idea inside the mind which understates the given of mind over matter.

How the brain generates awareness, thought, perceptions, emotions, and so forth, what philosophers call “the hard problem of consciousness.” It's a hard one indeed, so hard that despite an immense amount of research attention devoted to neurobiology, and despite great advances in our knowledge, I don't believe we are significantly closer to bridging the gap between that which is physical, anatomical and electro-neurochemical, and what is subjectively experienced by all of us ... or at least by me... But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it.

The implications are clear enough while theoretically it might be possible for neuroscientists to know everything about the physical structure of the brain, its 'product' the mind with its thoughts and ideas, impressions and emotions, would still remain unaccounted for. "We seem as far from understanding the brain as we were a century ago," remarked the editor of Nature John Maddox. "Nobody understands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free."

Latest research suggests that the human brain is made up of around 86 billion neurons, each of which connects to thousands of other neurons. It is the most complex biological structure on earth. Our brain is dynamic and continually changing. Even understanding the much less complex nervous system of a worm is elusive. This incredibly complex organ popped into existence with the Cambrian Explosion, the relatively short period in history when all known phyla emerged suddenly complete with incredibly complex brains and nervous systems. Emerson M. Pugh made an interesting statement: If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.

The mind is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, creation, judgement, and memory. Science is a product of the human mind, and it can never fully explain the human mind. The limits of science are real. Phenomena like the placebo effect understate that mind is a mystery to science. The mind-body problem shows that the mind is beyond science. Virginia Woolf once said: Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.

Charles Darwin:
But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?*
There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.

It is well known that the human mind is fundamentally different from that of animals. The human mind is capable of design, creation, art, beauty, thinking about past and future, making an agenda, belief, science, morality, etcetera. The difference between creating computers and using sticks is enormous. The gap between incredibly complex human language and the very limited set of sounds used by animals is huge. There are no talking monkeys simply because they don't have the ability to develop a language.

Darwin was a bad philosopher who based his conclusions on weak science and much metaphysics. The problems for naturalism with the human mind are striking. This has even led evolutionists to make up a theory called evolutionary psychology by which they view the mind as a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors.* Darwin wondered whether anyone could trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind. But would anyone trust in the convictions of a self-proclaimed monkey descendant's mind?

According to fanatic atheist and evolutionst Richard Dawkins...

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. ... Our brains were designed to understand... What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is NO.

Richard Dawkins attacks intelligent design because it doesn't fit with his narrow-minded belief. Ironically, while denying observable design he uses the word "design" a lot in order to explain what we see in this world. He admits that extra-natural specified complexity exists in life. But eventhough he won't or can't deny that it is caused by intelligent human beings he does deny that for example this fine-tuned universe and incredibly complex life in it are the result of intelligent design, the most likely and logical possibility. Design requires a designer and creation requires a creator. But evolutionists and atheists like Richard force themselves to deny the obvious by their blind faith in the unprovable philosophy naturalism.

Johannes Kepler:
When things are in order, if the cause of the orderliness cannot be deduced from the motion of the elements or from the composition of matter, it is quite possibly a cause possessing a mind.

William Paley:
Suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; ... But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone...?
For this reason .. that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive ... that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed in any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. This mechanism being observed ... the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker.

Charles Hodge:
We recently heard Prof. Joseph Henry, in a brief address, say substantially: "If I take brass, glass, and other materials, and fuse them, the product is a slag. This is what physical laws do. If I take those same materials, and form them into a telescope, that is what mind does." This is the whole question in a nutshell. That design implies an intelligent designer, is a self evident truth. Every man believes it; and no man can practically disbelieve it. Even those naturalists who theoretically deny it, if they find in a cave so simple a thing as a flint arrow-head, are as sure that it was made by a man as they are of their own existence. And yet they want us to believe that an eagle's eye is the product of blind natural causes. No combination of physical forces ever made a ship or a locomotive. It may, indeed, be said that they are dead matter, whereas plants and animals live.

When archaeologists find something as simple as a piece of a pot in the earth they immediately know it was made by intelligent agents. But when an evolutionist has to explain the appearance of all phyla with the Cambrian explosion he is quick to invoke mindless naturalistic processes as the cause. When people go to the library they know that books were written by intelligent agents. But when evolutionists are asked to explain how incredibly complex first life and its genetic code came into existence they immediately invoke mindless naturalistic processes. Even if we have never seen the Designer, design can be detected in the observable fine-tuned universe and the incredibly complex life in it.

Isaac Newton:
Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction and fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it?*

source

The key test is this: show me a process that generates information, and large amounts of specified information, without the guidance of an intelligent agent. ... everything we know is that only intelligence produces information. So test our theories against our knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the world. ... there are some very key things that Darwinian evolution, and in particular chemical evolutionary theory of the origin of first life, cannot and has not explained.*

The DNA enigma: Where does the specified information come from?

Regardless of what fanatic evolutionists would like to believe, specified information and complexity are caused by intelligent agents, not by mindless naturalistic processes. This website was intelligently designed to communicate a message to other intelligent human beings. The information is not accidental but intentional. All characters were carefully placed in a specific order to create a meaningful text that can be understood by other intelligent agents. The chance of getting this website without intelligent intervention is practically zero. The statement of one true scientist or good philosopher is worth much more than the collective statement of a thousand pseudoscientists or bad philosophers from the world of mainstream science who blindly accept the unprovable philosophy naturalism as a fact.

Albert Einstein:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.*